WTF Are the North Koreans Smoking Now?

[chitoryu12]

It's something that should be treated a lot more seriously than the Cold War.

Now that I have to disagree with. The USSR and US had the capability to annihilate each other, hence the term "mutually assured destruction". North Korea might, at some future point, have the capability to take out a city or three but while that would be very damaging it won't destroy the US as an entity. They certainly do not have the ability to reach Washington, D.C. at this time, and even if DC was lost the government already has contingency plans (thanks to the Cold War) and the states can each function with sufficient autonomy to keep things from collapsing until a new Federal government is set up.

So, no, I don't think this should be taken more seriously than the Cold War. Don't blow things out of proportion.

You missed the entire point of my post (namely, everything that you didn't quote). The USSR and US both had the capacity to do it, but neither of them threatened to immediately blow the other one up "just in case". Both nations maintained a "no first use" policy because they knew that being the first one to pull the trigger would condemn the world to burn. The mutual distaste toward being the first one to fire effectively nullified the danger, and you'll notice that the times when we REALLY came close to nuclear war were the times when one nation mistakenly thought that the other had suddenly launched.

North Korea's not doing that. They're not saying "We will fire our ICBMs if the United States attacks us." They're saying "We believe that the United States is planning an attack, and we're going to strike first just in case." The US doesn't even have to do anything in this scenario to inspire what's effectively homicidal rage. Regardless of the capability they have of causing severe damage, the fact is that they're directly stating that they WILL shoot even if the West doesn't directly attack them. That's a lot more than what the Soviets did, which was mostly just build things and look stern unless they thought that missiles were directly flying to Moscow right at that moment.

[Simon_Jester]

The catch is simply one of wording. It's one thing to 'reserve the right' to threaten use of nuclear weapons at some later time, when you MIGHT have to say "look here, either you take those tanks right across the border this minute or we start nuking you."

It's another matter entirely to say that you think the enemy's planning a sneak attack and will wipe him out first. Or (to pick a US example) to say "I have now outlawed the Soviet Union. The bombing will commence in five minutes..." It isn't funny coming from a guy with real nuclear launch codes in a real briefcase.

The North Koreans are used to being able to make horrendous, outlandish threats about how their nationalist whatever will destroy their enemies. Having nuclear weapons means that such threats are taken a lot more seriously, or ought to be.

"I'll kill you, you bastard!" can be an outright joke if you're standing fifty feet away from someone, waving your empty hand and standing still. It's not so funny if you're waving a machine gun.

Its not funny, but the fact is its not much different except in subtlety.

In the case of the man with the gun, yes, it is much different. There is a difference between a threat coming from someone who can show evidence that they're ready for immediate deadly violence, and a threat coming from someone who can't show that evidence.

In the normal course of human affairs, a threat can be forgotten. People forget that they meant to get revenge for some little offense. People find more important things to do with their lives. People reconsider whether it's worth it. When an unarmed person makes a threat of deadly violence, you might assume that if you can back out of the situation, it'll all be OK.

If the same person has a weapon that could hurt or kill you easily, even if you take steps to protect yourself like "run away," it's a whole different question. They can carry out their threat now, with no wait period; if they mean it right now, they're likely to do it, and they won't necessarily reconsider before carrying out the threat. Maybe they don't really mean it... but you can't possibly know that.

As I discuss below, if you can't take someone seriously when they outright say "we will attack you with nuclear weapons for doing XYZ," you can't take them seriously at all.

Ok, some people might find the lack of subtlety scary, but frankly to me it just seems more of the same (as what we have been used to from the major powers). Unlike the British situation in the Falklands where the British might lose a conventional war, chances are NK will definitely lose a conventional war. They need the nukes as a deterrent.

...and if everyone thought like you did, the deterrent wouldn't work. Allow me to explain:

On another note, I find the NK threats of first use almost as likely as this "North Korean" claim.

OK. Assume that is true. It's all insane delusional puffery.

What will the North Koreans do if they wish to communicate to you that no, seriously, you have to stop doing XYZ or they will launch a nuclear attack? Because one has to be able to communicate that, if one wants a nuclear deterrent to matter. Not only must the enemy believe that you will use it, they must be aware of the circumstances under which one will use it.

You've just told me that you will not believe that the North Koreans mean it when they say "we will attack you because we think you're going to hit us!" In that case, what do you expect the North Koreans to say if they are honestly warning us to back off or get hit with nuclear weapons? "We will attack you, and this time we really mean it?"

If a man is waving a gun and telling you he's going to kill you, either you take him bloody seriously, or you can never take him seriously at all... in which case the gun in his hand is totally irrelevant, and he should be as aware of that as anyone. For his own safety, if nothing else, because he should know that on the day when he really does seriously intend to kill someone... they're not going to believe it.


This is one of the most horrifying things that can happen between nuclear states: one side issues a deadly serious threat, and is not believed.

Now, maybe North Korea is used to making puffed-up statements about foreign countries and their own immense power. Statements that they know no one will believe. But if so, they need to break that habit fast as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, or they risk accidentally getting bombarded by a nervous neighbor who took them at their word.

[Stark]

I bet they're really concerned about that, as opposed to the attitude of the Untied States and how they view the character of those decision makers. It's possible the North Koreans don't understand that American hysteria over slights perceived or invented can draw them into futile conflicts, but assuming the other guy is rational is a common mistake.

[chitoryu12]

I bet they're really concerned about that, as opposed to the attitude of the Untied States and how they view the character of those decision makers. It's possible the North Koreans don't understand that American hysteria over slights perceived or invented can draw them into futile conflicts, but assuming the other guy is rational is a common mistake.

Responding poorly to threats of nuclear attack on us and our allies is "hysteria over perceived/invented slights" now?

[Stark]

Sorry, if you can't appreciate how others think, you'll go through life having this confusion. The North Koreans both need to support their social fabric and need to defend themselves against a super-powerful nation that can squash them whenever it wants and has described them for more than a decade as 'evil'. The rest of the world cowered in fear that America would destroy all life for decades, so nuclear brinksmanship actually works and the North Koreans probably percieve themselves to have a record of success in brinksmanship. They don't want to fight - they want to win without fighting, like everyone else.

And sorry, I have basically no doubt that actual American decisionmakers know exactly what game the North Koreans are playing and are playing it too. What the North Koreans may have ignored or neglected is that America is quite happy to either invent 'incidents' or simply make up entire lines of bullshit to justify whatever the public demands... so if you scare the poor trembling American people, it doesn't matter how sophisticated your political games and balances of power. That's what I'm afraid of; people like those in this thread being terrified driving America to do something stupid. Not the poor old North Koreans.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'd love to know what kind of incident would be fabricated to bring the US public onboard for a shooting match with the Norks. As gung ho as they can be, I don't think the appetite is really there to mess with the DPRK unless they do something really stupid sometime soon and directly linked to the US, rather than an ally in the east.

But I may be wrong. I might be unpleasantly surprised at how eager the US is to deal with them, or how antsy the North Koreans are about threats from the West.

[Stark]

Well, they probably said the same thing before the Gulf of Tonkin too. I just hope that the pressure is never there in the first place - and in this way, the North Korean actions are bad in that they are quite possibly very miscalculated.

I mean, them being backed into a corner and firing off their useless missiles to be shot down would basically hand America a blank cheque to sit on their country while millions die, and nobody wants that.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I found this on a little searching. Except now, they supposedly have actual fission bombs and some '50s era rocketry to deliver them. It may only change things a little in terms of damage they can actually do (nothing a good TMD won't sort out), though I see their arty batteries as being the bigger obstacle.

However, that doesn't change what Simon said about them making these threats and now being looked at as potentially being able to do something with them if need be. Of course making any threat either something to take seriously or to laugh at if they never follow through.

I guess I'd be happier if they had more of an arsenal and were quiet with the whole threat angle. The threat of refugees would still enable then to get China to deliver aid.

[Simon_Jester]

I bet they're really concerned about that, as opposed to the attitude of the Untied States and how they view the character of those decision makers. It's possible the North Koreans don't understand that American hysteria over slights perceived or invented can draw them into futile conflicts, but assuming the other guy is rational is a common mistake.

It's not like the US hasn't had to worry about this in the context of "how will the Russians react to our actions? How will they interpret a statement from us?"

For example, there was that time in 1983 when the Russians' satellites hiccuped and thought we'd launched a surprise attack. And perhaps they would have decided to launch a counterattack and started WWIII by accident. They did not, but they could have. If they had, then it would have been partly a reaction to NATO military exercises that looked suspiciously like attack preparations making them nervous, and to declines in relations between the US and USSR under Reagan.

Being careless and irresponsible about how you communicate your intentions with nuclear weapons is a big deal. The real world consequences are large. You can't just go "lol they're cowards" and ignore the problem.

I would never advocate the US doing something similarly stupid like saying "we're going to nuke Pyongyang, preemptively" because that would invite the North Koreans to shoot first and start a nuclear war. Why would the North Koreans have a right to be irresponsible when a larger nuclear power does not? Even if they are assuming "the other guy is rational," by what right do they assume that a rational person would ignore their threat of a preemptive nuclear attack?

Well, they probably said the same thing before the Gulf of Tonkin too. I just hope that the pressure is never there in the first place - and in this way, the North Korean actions are bad in that they are quite possibly very miscalculated.

I mean, them being backed into a corner and firing off their useless missiles to be shot down would basically hand America a blank cheque to sit on their country while millions die, and nobody wants that.

The US might not even be trying to fabricate anything. See, with the Gulf of Tonkin it was all about falsifications and bullshit and radar sightings that may not have happened.

If we want to fight North Korea because they like to torpedo other people's warships during peacetime, no one needs to bullshit anything, because that already happened. Nor is that the first time that the North Koreans decided to up and launch a military attack on another country's forces, and it probably won't be the last unless they sober up quickly.

A US military officer who acted this way towards the military of Russia or China would deserve to be horribly punished, for risking getting his country into nuclear war that could ruin it. Why would the rules be different for North Korea?

The entire complaint here is that the North Koreans are acting like raging assholes, killing people and threatening to kill more, while relying entirely on a larger rival not being willing to squash them for it. This is foolish and dangerous for everyone involved, even if the US is not actively looking for some kind of excuse to squash North Korea.

The DPRK may be run by rational people, but as far as national respect for peace is concerned, it acts like a wild-eyed manchild waving a Saturday night special and shouting "I KILL YOU! I KILL YOU!" to all and sundry. People who behave that way are prone to short, tragic lives.

[Stark]

You see? You reduce modern international power politics to the level of schoolyard arguments and wonder why your model doesn't work. 'National respect for peace'? Fucking PLEASE.

That you believe the nation of North Korea deserves to be 'punished' for its 'irrational' and 'inflammatory' actions is why you are confused. I sort of pity people like you, who literally grew up with this bizarre notion of how 'the world' works drilled into you. Why can't everyone just be like me and do what I want and share similar views?

Just look at your own personal fear that a bad thing might happen to your team, and imagine you have felt this way for decades and seen the same thing you fear happen over and over again all over the world in the voracious march of military imperialism. Then talk to me about 'national respect for peace'.

[Simon_Jester]

You see? You reduce modern international power politics to the level of schoolyard arguments and wonder why your model doesn't work. 'National respect for peace'? Fucking PLEASE.

That you believe the nation of North Korea deserves to be 'punished' for its 'irrational' and 'inflammatory' actions is why you are confused.

I believe no such thing.

I don't think North Korea deserves to be punished. I didn't say anything about punishment. No, I think they're being dumb, that they could get a lot of people killed by accident.

North Korea is used to being able to put out a lot of shrill hysterical bullshit for internal and external consumption alike. They're used to committing what we would normally call "acts of war" against some of their neighbors. And they're used to this shrill hysterical bullshit and these acts of war being consequence-free. When you are a nuclear power, they might be consequence-free. Or it might not. And if there are consequences, they're going to be big and nasty.

So I hope North Korea sobers up soon and stops doing things that might trigger a nuclear false alarm and get lots of people killed. Like the US 1983 military exercises, that just might have turned out to be the last mistake NATO ever made if the Russians had itchier trigger fingers.


This has nothing to do with teams or people all being just like me. If the North Korean leadership wants to enslave and torture its people, or make up absurd fantasies about ULTIMATE POWAH, that's not my problem. But I do think it's stupid and irresponsible for them to say "because you're going to attack us, we'll hit you first" to a country that is in fact NOT planning to attack them.

It's not even a question of "my team versus theirs," this would be just as dumb if they'd made the same threat to Russia or China. This is something all the nuclear powers in the past learned not to do to avoid having to fight nuclear wars with each other. If North Korea can't get the hang of it, then the North Korean bomb means nuclear war is quite a bit more likely in the future.

[Stark]

That's what I think the real problem is (well aside from American assumption of primacy but there's nothing anyone can do about that). Like I said before, they probably see that their brinksmanship has delivered results in the past, and they want nuclear weapons for quite sound reasons... however putting these two things together may not work the way they anticipate.

But dude, seriously, are you just forgetting all the basically meaningless negative waves America has publicly sent North Korea's way for ages and ages? Yeah, expecting America to attack them is SOOOOO IRRRRRRRATIONAL. Fucking PLEASE. You threaten people, they get scared. Scared people do dumb shit.

For all your schoolyard talk, it seems you've never been in a fight. :V

[Simon_Jester]

For such a keen advocate of understanding how other people think, you sure spend a lot of time putting words in people's mouths. What's all this about me "just forgetting" things?

Do you think I believe the North Koreans do things for no reason? That's ridiculous. But they can still do the wrong things, and fail to put in the diligence and analysis it takes to understand the situation and deal with it, and that's still a reality whether you choose to blame them for it or not.

[mr friendly guy]

In the case of the man with the gun, yes, it is much different. There is a difference between a threat coming from someone who can show evidence that they're ready for immediate deadly violence, and a threat coming from someone who can't show that evidence.

Ignoring the obvious bit that I haven't heard of a mushroom cloud going off in any US city, hence the immediate part of the threat seems over exaggerated, and if anyone really believed they were serious about it (ie nuking very soon as opposed to if provoked), they would urge all their relatives to abandon US cities which are in range of NK's missiles.

The fact is the guy who "can't show the evidence" of an immediate threat has a history of actually threatening others and actually carrying out their threat (albeit not necessarily carrying out nuclear strikes). How is that for evidence?

Seriously. This is looking like its ok when we do it, but when they do it, its not ok. However we can't outright say that without looking hypocritical, so we have to find something they do slightly different, no matter how trivial and use it as a justification to say they are bad.

What will the North Koreans do if they wish to communicate to you that no, seriously, you have to stop doing XYZ or they will launch a nuclear attack? Because one has to be able to communicate that, if one wants a nuclear deterrent to matter. Not only must the enemy believe that you will use it, they must be aware of the circumstances under which one will use it.

The North Koreans have communicated quite well they want to retain first use of nukes in a situation where someone else is about to use theirs. If you imagine themselves in their shoes, this actually makes sense given their lack of second strike capability. Plus you have nothing else to lose in that situation. What is stretching it is the NK words mean we will attack America right now, its an "immediate" threat, we will attack before they actually did anything to us. This scenario however makes no sense whatsoever because this time they have everything to lose as it would lead to NK's annihilation from its current form. You could say NK is not rational, however as strange as they are, they have engaged in successful brinkmanship before, no? This at least implies some level of decision making "prowess".

You've just told me that you will not believe that the North Koreans mean it when they say "we will attack you because we think you're going to hit us!" In that case, what do you expect the North Koreans to say if they are honestly warning us to back off or get hit with nuclear weapons? "We will attack you, and this time we really mean it?"

See above.

[Stark]

For such a keen advocate of understanding how other people think, you sure spend a lot of time putting words in people's mouths. What's all this about me "just forgetting" things?

Ok, maybe you never saw any of that Axis of Evil stuff. I can buy that.

Do you think I believe the North Koreans do things for no reason? That's ridiculous. But they can still do the wrong things, and fail to put in the diligence and analysis it takes to understand the situation and deal with it, and that's still a reality whether you choose to blame them for it or not.

So what do you think you're saying here? They have to have a credible threat of first use to prevent being sat on by the literally invincible US military, which has been rattling sabres at them for decades and have stepped up since the war on terror and (I believe) stepped down afterward which the North Koreans could easily imagine was due to their own sabre rattling.

If what you're saying is 'people having nuclear weapons is bad because they might use them in a foolish way', welcome to 1949's 'No Shit' award. Sadly, adults have to deal with the world as it exists and not a fantasy where people do what we want. The North Korean government is compelled to act a certain way, and certainly sees serious threats from other countries (and is arguably compelled to do so by their social setup). Reacting to this with fear or outrage or whatever is only going to make the situation worse, so I think its important to not do so ... which is the only reason I'm participating in a thread with such a hysterical title.

[Simon_Jester]

Stark, what I'm saying is that I fear the North Koreans are headed straight for the "first to argue their way into getting hit with a nuclear bomb" award, because they're used to constantly trolling and threatening their neighbors in ways far more explicit and violent than almost any other country,* including the US, normally gets up to. Such as shooting other people's warships full of torpedoes for no obvious reason.

If they continue this attitude while having nuclear weapons, they might touch off a localized World War III, and they will probably frighten all their neighbors into pursuing nuclear capability of their own if humanly possible. These are predictable consequences of their actions, even if (somehow) no one is 'to blame' for those actions, even if those actions 'always worked before!' or whatever.

And anyone in a position like "in charge of North Korea" who doesn't take those predictable consequences seriously, or can't figure out that they exist, is a fool.

And that is literally my entire point. I am not saying whether this is 'right' or 'wrong' or who is to blame. This is not about finding someone to blame, or "forgetting" or not forgetting anything the US has or has not done to North Korea.

It is a simple observation about- how did you put it?- adults having to deal with the world as it exists. And not Kim Jong Un Glorious Leader Fantasyland. It wouldn't even be controversial if it weren't for bickering nitwits.
___________________

*[Possible exceptions to that: Israel and Iran, both of which have done shit like try to sink neutral powers' warships in international waters, either because they think swinging the sabre is part of rattling it, or possibly in the Israelis' case because their navy is a bunch of feckless morons]

In the case of the man with the gun, yes, it is much different. There is a difference between a threat coming from someone who can show evidence that they're ready for immediate deadly violence, and a threat coming from someone who can't show that evidence.

Ignoring the obvious bit that I haven't heard of a mushroom cloud going off in any US city, hence the immediate part of the threat seems over exaggerated, and if anyone really believed they were serious about it (ie nuking very soon as opposed to if provoked), they would urge all their relatives to abandon US cities which are in range of NK's missiles.

The fact is the guy who "can't show the evidence" of an immediate threat has a history of actually threatening others and actually carrying out their threat (albeit not necessarily carrying out nuclear strikes). How is that for evidence?

Seriously. This is looking like its ok when we do it, but when they do it, its not ok. However we can't outright say that without looking hypocritical, so we have to find something they do slightly different, no matter how trivial and use it as a justification to say they are bad.

Somehow I get this idea that because it is the US that is threatened, you are judging North Korea's actions by comparison to (your version of) US actions.

I don't understand why you would do this. Is assault with a deadly weapon not still assault, if it is committed on a person with a history of violence? Is it somehow irrelevant that North Korea actually up and said "Sanctions? You dare? I NUKE YOU!"

A spokesman for the North Korean foreign ministry suggested the United States "is set to light a fuse for a nuclear war."

As a result, North Korea "will exercise the right to a preemptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors and to defend the supreme interests of the country," the country said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

They just explicitly said "I NUKE YOU!" That's what "will exercise the right to a preemptive nuclear attack" means.

The British, French, Soviets, Chinese, Israelis, Indians, and Pakistanis have never said this to anyone. The US never said it either. "We will launch nuclear attacks if you don't do XYZ," sometimes. But "we have already decided to exercise our right to do so," no.

If the North Koreans are serious, then they picked an incredibly stupid way to go about this because they tipped their hand openly and explicitly, and apparently without any serious attempt at prior negotiation.

If they're just rattling sabers very hard, then they're creating a huge unnecessary risk that some day someone's actually going to believe the crap coming out of their mouths. If it so happens that no one believes it today, or that the US is sure its missile defense can handle a North Korean attack, so what? That doesn't make the actions of the North Korean government any less risky or dumb.

What will the North Koreans do if they wish to communicate to you that no, seriously, you have to stop doing XYZ or they will launch a nuclear attack? Because one has to be able to communicate that, if one wants a nuclear deterrent to matter. Not only must the enemy believe that you will use it, they must be aware of the circumstances under which one will use it.

The North Koreans have communicated quite well they want to retain first use of nukes in a situation where someone else is about to use theirs.

No, they have communicated that they have already made up their minds that the situation justifies first use of nuclear weapons. And that they are going to "exercise their right" to first use.

That's the problem: the North Korean government just escalated all the way to a direct announcement of "we're going to nuke you." If they don't intend to carry out that threat, they shouldn't have made it. If they do intend to carry it out, in response to the thing that all this was about, they're a bunch of paranoid raging murderous assholes. Because it's not like there's a US armored column penetrating the DMZ or anything similarly provocative.

I don't actually have a problem with North Korea feeling like they should be ready to launch first. What I do have a problem with is them threatening to launch first as a diplomatic ploy. Or threatening to launch first every time some idiot moons them from the south side of the DMV. The US doesn't and never did do that, neither did any other nuclear power; North Korea is being both stupid and unjust by becoming the first power to use its nuclear arsenal as a casual threat.

What is stretching it is the NK words mean we will attack America right now,

How the hell else are we supposed to interpret "First, now that the U.S. is set to light a fuse for a nuclear war, the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK will exercise the right to a preemptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors and to defend the supreme interests of the country."

That's not "reserves the right." That's "will exercise the right." If that doesn't mean "we intend to deliver a preemptive nuclear attack," what the hell would they say that does mean that? Again, if that is not a serious North Korean threat, what would a serious do-this-or-boom North Korean threat even look like?

its an "immediate" threat, we will attack before they actually did anything to us. This scenario however makes no sense whatsoever because this time they have everything to lose as it would lead to NK's annihilation from its current form. You could say NK is not rational, however as strange as they are, they have engaged in successful brinkmanship before, no? This at least implies some level of decision making "prowess".

Or dumb luck, or maybe it's just that we never feared them enough to feel it was worth the effort to attack them first 'just in case.' That calculation might look very different if the North Koreans had a few dozen ICBMs pointed at American cities, and the North Koreans were regularly threatening to launch those ICBMs over every perceived slight.

If someone threatens you like that, you either learn to totally ignore North Korean nuclear threats (dangerous, see 'boy who cried wolf'), or you get SERIOUSLY tempted to do something about it just to get rid of that multimegaton Sword of Damocles hanging over your head with a crazy ranting person waving a lighter around the string.

You've just told me that you will not believe that the North Koreans mean it when they say "we will attack you because we think you're going to hit us!" In that case, what do you expect the North Koreans to say if they are honestly warning us to back off or get hit with nuclear weapons? "We will attack you, and this time we really mean it?"

See above.[/quote]

[Broomstick]

You missed the entire point of my post (namely, everything that you didn't quote). The USSR and US both had the capacity to do it, but neither of them threatened to immediately blow the other one up "just in case". Both nations maintained a "no first use" policy because they knew that being the first one to pull the trigger would condemn the world to burn.

I got that, but my point is that right now, no matter what, the NK does not have the capacity to destroy the US. In the Cold War the three superpowers really could have completely destroyed each other. The worst case scenario in the Cold War would have been pretty fucking devastating for everyone whether or not directly involved. The worst case here is that a couple cities get toasted. That's still very, very bad and it would be utterly horrific, but human civilization would go on.

Further on down the line North Korea might expand its arsenal and have a greater capacity for mass destruction, in which case, yes, it becomes more serious. Currently, though we're looking at WWII level atomic bombs from them. Experience in Japan shows a nation can be hit with a couple of those and rebuild, continuing as a nation. Of course, what the US has is much more powerful, it would be a very bad day to be in Pongyang should such a hypothetical conflict actually occur. The point is, however, that the level of destruction the NK can achieve is considerably less than either the US, USSR, or China during the height of the Cold War. That's why I say it's not a serious as the Cold War, not that the risk of actual conflict is somehow inherently less, but the potential worst case scenario is less.

Unless, of course, this was capable of somehow escalating into widespread nuclear exchange, but these days between monitoring technology and communications lines between other nations I'm hoping that's not going to happen.

The US doesn't even have to do anything in this scenario to inspire what's effectively homicidal rage. Regardless of the capability they have of causing severe damage, the fact is that they're directly stating that they WILL shoot even if the West doesn't directly attack them.

I think from the NK point of view the US has already done "something" to provoke the rage. The US, of course, says no, we haven't. I think it's safe to say the US and NK have vastly different views of the world. It's entirely possible for two adversaries to look at the exact same situation and come to different conclusions.

[Broomstick]

That's what I'm afraid of; people like those in this thread being terrified driving America to do something stupid. Not the poor old North Koreans.

No one here is "terrified", and no one is "trembling". Hell, no one in this thread has even stated that it's wrong for North Korea to have nuclear capability since their reasons for doing so are entirely logical. They feel threatened by a nuclear power. Yeah, we get that.

What I actually asked in the OP was "So, I guess, someone give me some evidence why this is still just so much hot air despite solid evidence of a nuclear weapons program." Instead of that, Stark, you're bashing the Americans again. Yeah, we know the US is prone to hysteria in regards to provocation, has falsified evidence to justify their actions, and so forth but I wasn't asking about the US (you've made it abundantly clear you personally think Americans are slime), I was asking about North Korea. On what basis does anyone conclude it's just more grandstanding this time vs. a real threat of future actions?

Really, it's as if I asked "is the US invading Iran a credible future occurrence?" and you started ranting about what scuzzballs the Iranians are.

So, let's try this again: Are the North Koreans serious when they say they're going to pre-emptively strike the US or not? Not what the US government might think, or the nebulous general American public - people here do have brains of their own, what do YOU think and why.

[Simon_Jester]

From my angle:

What's happened recently to affect North Korea isn't really making things worse than the status quo. US military maneuvers and renewed sanctions aren't exactly new or super-threatening to the survival of North Korea; the worst that happens from their point of view is that their oligarch class won't be able to import some luxury goods.

The North Korean leadership has shown no sign of wanting to die just to change the status quo.

Therefore, it is likely that this is just arrogant puffery for domestic assumption, of the same sort the North Koreans have been turning out for decades. The problem is, of course, that without knowing what magic code word North Korea uses to say "and this time we really mean it," we're forced to take all statements like that at face value. Or at least to do so until we can get diplomatic clarification from North Korea on exactly what they're threatening us with, and why.

Which wraps back to my point, that this is very irresponsible and foolish of the North Koreans, assuming it is just puffery. Acting like this routinely would be just about the worst way a nuclear power could possibly make use of its deterrent forces.

[bilateralrope]

Two new developments that seem relevant to this thread.

North Korea cuts off hotline with South Korea

North Korea has cut off a Red Cross hotline with South Korea as it escalates its war of words against Seoul and Washington in response to a military drill in the South and United Nations sanctions imposed for its recent nuclear test.

The North had threatened to cut off the hotline on March 11 if the United States and South Korea did not abandon their joint military exercise.

The Red Cross hotline is used to communicate between Seoul and Pyongyang which do not have diplomatic relations.

"We called at 9am and there was no response," a government official from South Korea said. The line is tested each day.

Pyongyang has also threatened to cut off a hotline with UN forces in South Korea, at the border "truce village" of Pammunjom.

Tensions on the Korean peninsula have risen since the North conducted a third nuclear test on February 12, prompting new UN sanctions.

South Korea and US forces are conducting large-scale military drills until the end of April, while the North is also gearing up for a massive state-wide military exercise.

North Korea has accused the United States of using the military drills in South Korea as a launch pad for a nuclear war and has threatened to scrap the armistice with Washington that ended hostilities in the 1950-53 Korean War.

The North has threatened a nuclear strike on the United States, but such a threat has been dismissed as rhetoric by analysts, as the North does not have the military capacity to reach the United States.

The North is viewed as more likely to stage some kind of attack along a disputed sea border, if it does anything at all, rather than risk a war with South Korea and the United States, which it would lose, according to most military assessments.

Cutting off communication seems like a very bad idea. Has North Korea ever done it before ?

North Korea cancels 1953 armistice

A state-run newspaper in North Korea says the communist country has carried out a threat to cancel the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, following days of increased tensions over its latest nuclear test.

A UN spokesman said later, however, that North Korea cannot unilaterally dissolve the armistice.

North Korea also followed through on another promise: It shut down a Red Cross hotline that the North and South Korea used for general communication and to discuss aid shipments and separated families' reunions.

Enraged over the South's current joint military drills with the United States and last week's UN sanctions imposed on Pyongyang for its February 12 nuclear test, North Korea has piled threat on top of threat, including a vow to launch a nuclear strike on the US.

Seoul has responded with tough talk of its own and has placed its troops on high alert.

Tensions on the divided peninsula have reached their highest level since North Korea rained artillery shells on a South Korean island in 2010.

The North Korean government made no formal announcement on its repeated threats to scrap the 60-year-old armistice, but the country's main newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, reported that the armistice was nullified as Pyongyang had said it would.

The North has threatened to nullify the armistice several times before, and in 1996 it sent hundreds of armed troops into a border village. The troops later withdrew.

Despite the North Korean report, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said the armistice is still valid and still in force because the armistice agreement had been adopted by the UN General Assembly and neither North Korea nor South Korea could dissolve it unilaterally.

"The terms of the armistice agreement do not allow either side unilaterally to free themselves from it," said Nesirky, the spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Ban urged North Korea "to continue to respect the terms of the armistice agreement as it was approved by the General Assembly," Nesirky said, adding that officials at UN headquarters in New York were unaware of any operational changes on the ground on the Korean peninsula.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the US was "certainly concerned by North Korea's bellicose rhetoric. And the threats that they have been making follow a pattern designed to raise tension and intimidate others."

He added that Pyongyang "will achieve nothing by threats or provocation, which will only further isolate North Korea and undermine international efforts to ensure peace and stability in northeast Asia."

Despite the heightened tensions, there were signs of business as usual on Monday.

The two Koreas continue to have at least two working channels of communication between their militaries and aviation authorities.

One of those hotlines was used to give hundreds of South Koreans approval to enter North Korea to go to work.

Their jobs are at the only remaining operational symbol of joint cooperation, the Kaesong industrial complex.

It is operated in North Korea with South Korean money and know-how and a mostly North Korean workforce.

The 11-day military drills that started on Monday involve 10,000 South Korean and about 3,000 US troops. Those coincide with two months of separate US-South Korean field exercises that began March 1.

The drills are held annually, and this year, according to South Korean media, the "Key Resolve" drill rehearses different scenarios for a possible conflict on the Korean peninsula using computer-simulated exercises.

The US and South Korean troops will be used to test the scenarios.

Also continuing are large-scale North Korean drills that Seoul says involve the army, navy and air force. The South Korean Defence Ministry said there have been no military activities it considers suspicious.

The North Korean rhetoric escalated as the UN Security Council on Thursday approved a new round of sanctions over Pyongyang's nuclear test.

Analysts said that much of the bellicosity is meant to shore up loyalty among citizens and the military for North Korea's young leader, Kim Jong Un.

"This is part of their brinksmanship," said Daniel Pinkston, a Seoul-based expert on North Korea with the International Crisis Group think tank.

"It's an effort to signal their resolve, to show they are willing to take greater risks, with the expectation that everyone else caves in and gives them what they want."

Part of what North Korea wants is a formal peace treaty to end the Korean War, instead of the armistice that leaves the peninsula still technically in a state of war. I

t also wants security guarantees and other concessions, direct talks with Washington, recognition as a nuclear weapons state, and the removal of 28,500 US troops stationed in South Korea.

Pinkston said there is little chance of fighting breaking out while war games are being conducted, but he added that he expects North Korea to follow through with a somewhat mysterious promise to respond at a time and place of its own choosing.

North Korea was responsible for an artillery attack that killed four South Koreans in 2010.

A South Korean-led international investigation found that North Korea torpedoed a South Korean warship that same year, killing 46 sailors. Pyongyang denies sinking the ship.

Among other recent threats, North Korea has warned Seoul of a nuclear war on the divided peninsula and said it was cancelling nonaggression pacts.

South Korean and US officials have been closely monitoring Pyongyang's actions and parsing its recent rhetoric, which has been more warlike than usual.

One analyst said Kaesong's continued operations show that North Korea's cutting of the Red Cross communication channel was symbolic.

More than 840 South Koreans were set to cross the border on Monday to Kaesong, which provides a badly needed flow of hard currency to a country where many face food shortages, according to Seoul's Unification Ministry.

"If South Koreans don't go to work at Kaesong, North Korea will suffer" financially, said analyst Hong Hyun-ik at the private Sejong Institute in South Korea.

"If North Korea really intends to start a war with South Korea, it could have taken South Koreans at Kaesong hostage."

Under new President Park Geun-hye, South Korea's Defence Ministry, which often brushes off North Korean threats, has looked to send a message of strength in response to the latest comments from Pyongyang.

The ministry has warned that the North's government would "evaporate from the face of the Earth" if it ever used a nuclear weapon.

The White House also said the US is fully capable of defending itself against a North Korean ballistic attack.

On Monday, Park told a Cabinet Council meeting that South Korea should strongly respond to any provocation by North Korea. But she also said Seoul should move ahead with her campaign promise to build trust with the North.

North Korea has said the US mainland is within the range of its long-range missiles, and an army general told a Pyongyang rally last week that the military is ready to fire a long-range nuclear-armed missile to turn Washington into a "sea of fire."

While outside scientists are still trying to determine specifics, the North's rocket test in December and third nuclear test last month may have pushed the country a step closer to acquiring the ability to hit the US with weapons of mass destruction.

Analysts, however, say Pyongyang is still years away from acquiring the smaller, lighter nuclear warheads needed for a credible nuclear missile program.

But there are still worries about a smaller conflict, and analysts have said that more missile and nuclear tests are possible reactions from North Korea.

North Korea has a variety of missiles and other weapons capable of striking South Korea.

Both the warship sinking and island shelling in 2010 occurred near a western sea boundary that North Korea fiercely disputes.

It has been a recurring flashpoint between the rivals that has seen three other bloody naval skirmishes since 1999.

Last week, Kim Jong Un visited two islands just north of the sea boundary and ordered troops there to open fire immediately if a single enemy shell is fired on North Korean waters.

Kim was also quoted as saying his military is fully ready to fight an "all-out war" and that he will order a "just, great advance for national unification" if the enemy makes even a slight provocation, according to the North's official Korean Central News Agency.

The canceling of the armistice looks like it's internal propaganda. The article does say they have threatened to cancel the armistice before, but no mention of them claiming they have actually done it.

[PeZook]

A UN spokesman said later, however, that North Korea cannot unilaterally dissolve the armistice.

What? Of course they can - they just start shooting again

[Simon_Jester]

I think this amplifies my earlier point, though. Sure, this may just be for internal consumption.

But try to falsify the hypothesis that the North Koreans really are working themselves up to war; it's hard to do it on the strength of evidence available. Since the North Koreans are rarely forthright about their intentions at a time like this, it's very hard to tell whether this is mere belligerent bullshit, or the beginnings of a planned war fought because the Supreme Leader had a bad case of hemorrhoids this month or whatever.

We can guess, but we can't know- which basically forces everyone in the region except North Korea to go to Defcon One or whatever. Not good.

[bilateralrope]

A UN spokesman said later, however, that North Korea cannot unilaterally dissolve the armistice.

What? Of course they can - they just start shooting again

Hasn't the armistice survived the North Koreans shooting before ?

[Rogue 9]

A UN spokesman said later, however, that North Korea cannot unilaterally dissolve the armistice.

What? Of course they can - they just start shooting again

Hasn't the armistice survived the North Koreans shooting before ?

Yeah, mainly because, Stark's idiocy to the contrary, no one's willing to sacrifice Seoul over it. They don't need nuclear weapons to level the South Korean capital and kill almost the entire U.S. and UN garrison; there's enough artillery pointed at it across the border to do the job conventionally in a matter of hours at most.

[Simon_Jester]

I wonder what the North Korean government would do, if suddenly they looked across the DMZ and found that South Korea was doing a government-mandated evacuation of civilians from Seoul.

Probably shit a brick. I know I would in their shoes, because it'd be the obvious precursor to South Korea saying 'You know what? You're right, let's tear up this armistice' and starting a war North Korea can't win in the long run.

[Not that this is likely to come up, just an interesting thought inspired by some remarks I've seen on the Cold War; if the Soviets had started evacuating cities it would have been a terrifying development, because it strongly suggests that they are seriously planning for a war and expect it to happen, and have given up trying to avoid it]